WA/WB against LAG's

restless · #1 09-09-2005, 03:11 AM

I'm looking for a good way to handle WA/WB situations against a LAG/maniac.

Here's an example: CO was very aggressive but not extremely loose. (35/15/5)

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
1 fold, Hero raises, 3 folds, CO 3-bets, 3 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, CO calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, CO raises, Hero calls.

River: (8.75 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 10.75 BB

Against a TAG I beleive I could just check-call all the way here. The flush draw wouldn't really concern me against a TAG cause I would most probably be behind anyway if he has it (AK of spades).

Now, I'm up against a guy who I suspect will 3-bet pf with a pretty wide range of hands. I decided to bet to avoid giving a free card (OTOH, he's not likely to take it anyhow...), when I'am more likely to be ahead IMO.
From the turn I decide to call down, because I don't trust him enough to fold.

Some other general questions concerning WA/WB for you:

#1: A typical WA/WB line is c-c/c-c/b-f. This is mostly applicable to predictable & passive players right? I'd hate to fold on the river against some guy who just didn't realize it was a WA/WB situation...

#2. How would my play change if the flop came Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] instead?
a) vs a TAG?
b) va LAG/maniac?

Any other useful insights on this subject?

Argus · #2 09-09-2005, 05:24 AM

When you say LAG/maniac I am assuming that you mean a player who is very likely to raise you with less than top pair on every street. Also a player against whom (strong) A-high has showdown value on most boards. Against these players I tend to evaluate the strength of my hands and decide about how many bets they are worth. That is, how many bets might the LAG be willing to put in before I consider that my hand might be worse. I don't want the LAG to ever give me so much action that I consider folding, because against players like this going to showdown is very valuable. Their holdings are too varied and their action doesn't tell you enough about them.

Out of position with a hand like yours, where you think you might be WA/WB I like bet/call, bet/call, bet/call. This ensures a bet on every street and no free cards for the LAG. His waiting for the turn to raise is indicative of some strength, and this doesn't seem like the sort of player to 3-bet weak aces. Seems reasonable to assume that you could be WA/WB. A 3-bet might induce him to fold the holdings that you beat, such as a pocket pair or AJ. I like a bet again on the river to prevent a free showdown and because I'm not convinced we're beaten just from a turn raise. You really would like at least one bet on every street.

Against a more maniacal player I'd 3-bet the turn; if you can read him for less strength and a tendency to call down with hands you beat a 3-bet is pretty clear.

ErrantNight · #3 09-09-2005, 08:13 AM

for the record... you shouldn't always bet/fold the river when taking the WA/WB line, even (and particularly) against tags... sometimes you should bet/call.

here you have to make a determination about how many bets villain is likely to go, whether he's a lag capable of making laydowns if the action gets scary, and whether he'll call you down if you take the lead in the betting.

which really depends on how much of a maniac you read him to be.

krimson · #4 09-09-2005, 09:52 AM

I think c/c on this river is acceptable. The player is aggressive enough that I doubt we are going to miss a value bet when ahead here. I certainly would not b/f against a player with AF of 5 as he might be raising a weaker ace.